available openly.” Staff expressed future proofing worries that if GLAMs do not understand (or know with certainty) that something is in the public domain, they will treat risk averse materials as in-copyright and disengage. Across the UK, the scope of impacted materials is immeasurable.
This stressor is compounded by the fact the sector has underinvested in copyright awareness and support. The majority of GLAMs have limited access, if any, to legal service and expertise. Some receive pro bono services for project-specific or one-off advice. Few have an IP manager or legal team to support the range of needs that go beyond rights management. Those who do rely significantly on such persons and are even expected (and happy) to defer to them. For many, such persons provide an invaluable resource. Some are even able to push back against (relative) risk aversion to design creative solutions. Others noted difficulties when these roles sit within the commercialisation department or trade arm of the GLAM. Where more traditional positions are taken, this is seen as contributing to stagnation on open access and interpretations of law that do not serve the public.
Conversations revealed that commercialisation factors primarily influence decisions to claim copyright and/or provide digital access rather than a legal assessment of the “originality” of reproduction media. For many GLAMs, decisions on digitisation, access and open access hinge on the commercial viability of materials. Staff expressed additional concerns considering such assessments are often made based on potential commercial viability, rather than any immediate or concrete plans to commercialise. This can impact different collections disproportionately. Those ripe for public engagement are seen to be equally ripe for commercialisation due to their attractiveness and the GLAM’s ability to leverage their public as future consumers through a commercial partnership. A copyright-by-default approach is therefore seen to protect potential revenue streams and prohibit any commercialisation or profit that does not flow back to the GLAM itself. A few staff interpret the RPSI Regulation to support or require this approach, as a risk averse reading could prohibit GLAMs from charging for commercial partnerships where the collections are also published using open licences and tools.
Reasons for taking these approaches in this transitional moment are understandable. Some staff expressed a sense of unfairness when for-profit commercialisation or the commercial sector steps in and “free-rides” on the collection. Many do not want things to be “wrongfully commercialised”. Other staff reasoned this is why GLAMs use copyright: to prevent others from taking content that is not theirs, and to safeguard it for the nation. GLAMs cannot presume to know how artists intended for their works to be reused, particularly considering such reuse includes the GLAM’s perpetual commercialisation. To counter this, participants feel “[t]here needs to be massive education around this.” As one participant observed, “GLAMs are effectively putting things back into copyright by putting a licence onto the reproduction materials. This results in perpetual copyright. Once something is out of copyright, it should be turned over to the public.”
The outcome of a traditional copyright approach is thus one of risking the public domain and its incredible potential for UK GLAMs, the public and the economy.
5.1.2. Support for existing digital and open access remits
All participants noted the collapse in funding for digitisation following its initial push two decades ago. Today, GLAMs are expected to build digitisation into operations and find costs within the budget. Funding and budgets for open access remits are almost non-existent.
